4 ms·
It wouldn't be wise, because they will lose a truckload (several dozen truckloads) of money from doing so. MS doesn't make money from end users. MS licenses are
by blumkvist 11y ago
It wouldn't be wise, because they will lose a truckload (several dozen truckloads) of money from doing so. MS doesn't make money from end users. MS licenses are resold. Either from OEM or ISV. Customers go to them and the reseller decides what they need. The reseller doesn't need simple licensing. The reseller has a floor of people whose only job is to know the licensing structures.
Why hire so many people to navigate the licensing? Because that's how you extract the maximum value (money) from the market. This is why I said chasing doesn't understand how money is made in such situations. He sees something and takes it at face value. "Derp-a-derp-a-derp, I'm a clueless consumer, don't overwhelm me with so many decisions... why Microsoft sucks so much at business?"
No, they don't suck at business. You do.
- chasing 11y agoI don't use their products, so they may not suck at business, but they suck at getting my business. And given how successful Apple has been at courting both consumers and professionals, I don't think it's at all ridiculous to argue that maybe Microsoft needs to tweak how they present their products to the world. Especially their most successful products. Or I could use your logic: Apple makes even more money and they only offer one version of Mac OS X. They don't suck at business. Microsoft does. QED.
- blumkvist 11y agoApple sells mobile phones, Microsoft sells software, how can you compare them? Or are you arguing that Apple PCs are more successful than Windows PCs? It is very funny that you think you made your point with this example when you actually did exactly the opposite. Apple almost went out of business when they competed with MSFT in the PC/OS business, exactly because of those pricing/reseller strategies that MSFT employs.